I use the Nikkor 55-300VR. I also have the 70-200VR, 28-300VR and 300 f/4. But for some reason, I get my best results from the 55-300VR. I think its because it is so light and the VR works so well that hand held shots are not a problem. Can't do thatwith the 300 f/4 and no VR. And tripods take me too long to carry and set-up. I got the V1 for the crop factor for birding and use it exclusively for that. I keep practicing and am slowly getting better.

PS: This bird was hanging on a feeder at about 30 feet...so I rotated it, cropped out the feet and the feeder and made it more of a 'portrait" look.

I totally agree about the potential future of mirrorless technology. But Nikon has to do something about the System 1 ISO capability when using the FT-1. I really can't go over ISO400 and crop deep. Also AF is very slow to lock in using the FT-1, unless there is bright light. The good news is that more sunny days are coming in PA. But the V1 is so light and easy to carry around and the 55-300 has very little focus breathing... so I have more reach at shorter distances to subject and much lighter weight compared to my 28-300 or 70-200. And personally I believe that the lack of mirror slap in the V1 greatly improves the sharpness of the results.

>> But Nikon has to do something about the System 1 ISO capability when using the FT-1.

According to Bill Claff's numbers, the 1 high ISO performance is within one stop of the theoretical maximum. The latest DX and FX cameras perform similarly, relative to their respective theoretically ideal capability.

In other words, it is more of a problem of the limits of physics than the engineering of the camera, something Nikon might be able to "do something about". It is inherent in the sensor size, the same thing giving you that huge apparent magnification.

In the long run there is no substitute for a 600/4

Your best solution to improve that might be a 300/4 although you would likely run into DOF problems, especially at the high apparent magnification of the CX sensor. You are essentially doing a deep crop, even "fully framed", of a very high density DX sensor, or even higher density (70 mpx equivilent) FX sensor. The real world DOF would be far thinner than even the standard 35mm format DOF tables suggest.

>> I have the 300 f/4 and don't get the results with it that I do with the 55-300VR

Interesting. At shutter speeds below 1/500s I would think VR might be helpful. At the 1/1250s shutter speed here, I would not think VR would be effective at all, and for those higher shutter speeds I think that would be a mystery.

I don't have your zoom; I just assume an excellent prime will beat any zoom, in exchange for that feature. I consider the 300/4 as excellent as it gets, short of the more expensive super-teles.

And at those speeds my understanding of VR suggests similar technique should yield comparable results. So an interesting and puzzling observation on your part.

I am certainly not a techie when it comes to how camera tech works. But we all know that VR is handholding stabilization and high shutter speeds are used to stop subject motion. Somewhere inside me I think that handholding stability suppressed by VR would not be triggered to turn off by high shutter speeds. Yes...tripod use would trigger VR to turn off due to the camera/lens sensing very little stability issues, but I don't unserstand why mfgr's would shut off VR when high shutter speeds are used. VR's impact might not be that beneficial...but it should still work to keep the stabilization effective.

An example might be if I were shooting from a boat at high shutter speeds I would still want the VR to work. Also, it seems that when I have VR with the V1, my image is super stable in the VF...and therefore I am not subject to making frequent hand adjustments to keep my center AF point on the subject. COnstant minor hand abjustments to keep the center AF point on subject is adding motion to the camera and adding blur to the image...I think. So in my observation it appears to work even at higher shutter speeds.

He claims that VR cannot be effective above 1/500s simply because it is not fast enough to stabilize the image within that short of a time window. It is not a matter of Nikon "turning it off", but simply a limitation of the technology.

(I think I summarized his complex discussion fairly accurately but read his version!)

An analogy that comes to mind is the fuel gauge in a vehicle. Its sampling rate is very slow. If your vehicle is changing attitude very quickly then the fuel gauge cannot keep up and at times can be very inaccurate. The gauge is not "turned off", it is simply faced with something it can't deal with.

In the case of a fuel gauge it is "damped" on purpose to keep it from bouncing around, which I guess is a greater evil under most conditions. An imperfect analogy, but it is the analogy that popped into my head just now

I would agree that VR helps to stabilize the image in the viewfinder, but Thom claims it can be counterproductive for the image itself. Again, you have to read the article and evaluate his reasoning.

I think this creates a problematic "twilight zone" with long lenses, where shutter speeds beyond 1/500s can result in significant blur yet we are forced to deal with it the old fashioned way, with good technique and/or support.

I see this clearly in images shot on DX at 700mm, where I spend a lot of time. I've gotten the odd blurry image at surprisingly high shutter speeds- 1/1000s and perhaps even a bit higher, and that with a good solid tripod and gimbal.

You may see the same effect at shorter focal lengths due to the extreme sensor density. Especially if you are further cropping down what is already a very highly cropped field of view for the focal length.

When I look at the picture it looks to me like I have set it up in a studio... but I swear it is natural light on the feeder early in the morning.

The background is the distant trees in the background and the brown roof on my shed. Just worked out in an interesting bokeh. As I mentioned above the bird was originally vertical on a feeder but for a more interesting image I rotated the image 90 degrees horizontal and cropped out the feeder and birds feet.

I really have been amazed over the last few years how much more interesting a picture can be when it is cropped/positioned PP.